arX

iv:1

208.

5498

v1 [

astr

o-ph

.SR

] 27

Aug

201

2

Detection of the simplest sugar, glycolaldehyde, in a solar-type protostar with ALMA

Jes K. Jørgensen1,2, Cecile Favre3, Suzanne E. Bisschop2,1, Tyler L. Bourke4, Ewine F. van Dishoeck5,6,and Markus Schmalzl5

ABSTRACT

Glycolaldehyde (HCOCH2OH) is the simplest sugar and an important intermediate in thepath toward forming more complex biologically relevant molecules. In this paper we presentthe first detection of 13 transitions of glycolaldehyde around a solar-type young star, throughAtacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) observations of the Class 0 protostellar binaryIRAS 16293-2422 at 220 GHz (6 transitions) and 690 GHz (7 transitions). The glycolalde-hyde lines have their origin in warm (200–300 K) gas close to the individual components ofthe binary. Glycolaldehyde co-exists with its isomer, methyl formate (HCOOCH3), which is afactor 10–15 more abundant toward the two sources. The data also show a tentative detectionof ethylene glycol, the reduced alcohol of glycolaldehyde.In the 690 GHz data, the seven tran-sitions predicted to have the highest optical depths based on modeling of the 220 GHz lines allshow red-shifted absorption profiles toward one of the components in the binary (IRAS16293B)indicative of infall and emission at the systemic velocity offset from this by about 0.2′′ (25 AU).We discuss the constraints on the chemical formation of glycolaldehyde and other organicspecies – in particular, in the context of laboratory experiments of photochemistry of methanol-containing ices. The relative abundances appear to be consistent with UV photochemistry of aCH3OH–CO mixed ice that has undergone mild heating. The order ofmagnitude increase inline density in these early ALMA data illustrate its huge potential to reveal the full chemicalcomplexity associated with the formation of solar system analogs.

Subject headings: astrochemistry — astrobiology — stars: formation — ISM: abundances —ISM: molecules — ISM: individual (IRAS 16293-2422)

1Centre for Star and Planet Formation and Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100Copenhagen Ø., Denmark, jeskj@nbi.dk

2Centre for Star and Planet Formation and Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade5–7, DK-1350 Copenhagen K., Denmark, suzanne@snm.ku.dk

3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, NyMunkegade, DK-8000, Aarhus C., Denmark, favre@phys.au.dk

4Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA, tbourke@cfa.harvard.edu

5Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, PO Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands, ewine@strw.leidenuniv.nl,schmalzl@strw.leidenuniv.nl

6Max-Planck Institut fur extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstrasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany

– 2 –

1. Introduction

One of the most intriguing questions in studies of the chemistry of the early solar system is whether,how, when and where complex organic and potentially prebiotic molecules are formed. One of the keyspecies in this context is glycolaldehyde (HCOCH2OH). It is the simplest sugar and the first intermediateproduct in the formose reaction that begins with formaldehyde (H2CO) and leads to the (catalyzed) formationof sugars and ultimately ribose, the backbone of RNA, under early Earth conditions (e.g., Larralde et al.1995). The presence of glycolaldehyde is therefore an important indication that the processes leading tobiologically relevant molecules are taking place. However, the mechanism responsible for its formation inspace is still unclear (see, e.g., Woods et al. 2012).

Glycolaldehyde has so-far been detected in two places in space – toward the Galactic center sourceSgrB2(N) (Hollis et al. 2000; see also Hollis et al. 2001; Hollis et al. 2004; Halfen et al. 2006; Requena-Torres et al.2008) and the high-mass hot molecular core G31.41+0.31 (Beltran et al. 2009). Another compelling relateddiscovery is that of ethylene glycol (“anti-freeze”; (CH2OH)2), the reduced alcohol variant of glycolal-dehyde, found also toward SgrB2(N) at comparable abundances (Hollis et al. 2002). Searches for glycol-aldehyde in comets have so-far only resulted in upper limits, whereas ethylene glycol is detected towardHale-Bopp and found to be at least 5 times more abundant than glycolaldehyde (Crovisier et al. 2004).Comparisons between these species are therefore particularly interesting as their relative abundances poten-tially provide strong constraints on their formation and the chemical evolution from protostars to primitivesolar system material.

The protostellar (Class 0) binary IRAS16293-2422 (IRAS16293 hereafter) at a distance of 120 pc(Loinard et al. 2008) has long been considered to be the best low-mass protostellar testbed for astrochemi-cal studies (see, e.g., Blake et al. 1994; van Dishoeck et al.1995; Ceccarelli et al. 2000; Schoier et al. 2002),a status that has been further bolstered by the detection of awealth complex organic molecules toward thissource (Cazaux et al. 2003; Caux et al. 2011). (Sub)millimeter wavelength interferometric studies of itschemistry have revealed strong differentiation among different species toward the two components in the bi-nary (IRAS16293A and IRAS16293B; Wootten 1989) including complex organic molecules (Bottinelli et al.2004; Schoier et al. 2004; Bisschop et al. 2008; Jørgensen et al. 2011).

With the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) beginning operations a completelynew opportunity has arisen for studies of the astrochemistry of solar-type stars. ALMA provides highsensitivity for faint lines, high spectral resolution which limits line confusion, and high angular resolutionmaking it possible to study young stars on solar-system scales. In this letter we report the first potentialdiscoveries of glycolaldehyde and ethylene glycol in a solar-type protostar from ALMA observations ofIRAS 16293-2422.

– 3 –

2. Observations

IRAS 16293-2422 was observed on 2011 August 16–17 as part of the ALMA Science Verification(SV) program in band 6 (see also Pineda et al. 2012). At the time of observations 16 antennae were presentin the array in a compact configuration resulting in a synthesized beam size of 2.5′′×1.0′′(PA = 92◦). Thesource was observed in a two-point mosaic with a total integration time of 5.5 hrs. The observations con-tain one spectral window with 3840 channels and a channel width of 61.0 kHz (0.083 km s−1) coveringa bandwidth from 220.078 GHz to 220.313 GHz. The resulting line RMS noise level is estimated to be13 mJy beam−1 channel−1 in off-source line free channels.

IRAS 16293-2422 was further observed in ALMA’s band 9 on 2012April 16–17 with 13 antennaein the array. For these observations a seven-point mosaic was performed with the array in an extendedconfiguration resulting in a synthesized beam size of 0.29′′×0.18′′ (PA = 113◦) covering the full spectralranges 686.5–692.2 GHz (except 688.35-688.50 GHz) and 703.2–705.1 GHz with an effective spectral res-olution of 980 kHz (0.4 km s−1). In total about 9.2 hrs were spent on the mosaic resulting inan RMS of0.11 Jy beam−1 channel−1.

For both datasets we followed the reduction in the CASA cookbooks/scripts delivered together withthe SV data. To test the reliability of the SV data we comparedthe resulting band 6 spectra to our largeSubmillimeter Array survey (SMA, Jørgensen et al. 2011; Bisschop et al. 2008). Excellent agreement isseen between the SMA and ALMA spectra at the two continuum peaks with fluxes for bright lines agreeingto better than 10–20%. This illustrates that the relative calibration of the two arrays is good but also, equallyimportant, that the detected line emission is compact in both beams: the larger SMA beam of 4′′×2.4′′ doesnot pick up significant extended emission that may have been missed by ALMA.

3. Results

Fig. 1 shows the band 6 spectra at 220.2 GHz within one synthesised beam toward the two contin-uum peaks marking the locations of IRAS16293A (α=16.h32.m22.87.s; δ=−24.d28′36.′′39) and IRAS16293B(α=16.h32.m22.62.s; δ=−24.d28′32.′′46). A large number of lines are clearly seen toward both positions. Thewidths of the lines follow the pattern seen in previous studies, with IRAS16293A showing lines about a fac-tor of 5 broader than those toward IRAS16293B. Also, as seen in previous observations (e.g., Bottinelli et al.2004) many of the lines toward IRAS16293B show red-shifted absorption features against the continuumindicative of infalling motions.

In the 220 GHz data the most easily identifiable species is methyl formate, which is responsible for thetwo brightest lines at 220.1669 and 220.1903 GHz as well as a handful of other lines. A number of otherspecies are easily detected, including ketene (CH2CO) at 220.1776 GHz and trans-ethanol (t-C2H5OH) at220.1548 GHz (see also Bisschop et al. 2008). More remarkable is a set of clearly detected lines that can beattributed to glycolaldehyde. Table 1 lists the identified transitions of methyl formate and glycolaldehyde,including lines in vibrationally excited levels, togetherwith references to the laboratory spectroscopy data

– 4 –

Fig. 1.— Spectra in the central beams toward the continuum peaks of IRAS16293A (upper) andIRAS16293B (lower). Fits from LTE models of the methyl formate (blue) and glycolaldehyde (red) emis-sion are overplotted. The purple line indicates the model fitto the possible ethylene glycol transition. TheX-axis represents the frequencies in the rest frame of the system (i.e., corrected for the systemVLSR of3 km s−1). The green line is an indication of the RMS level (13 mJy beam−1) represented by a spectrumextracted from an off source position. Note the much narrower lines toward IRAS16293B which facilitateidentification of individual features.

– 5 –

on which the frequencies are based. Simultaneous Gaussian fits to all lines in the central beams toward eachof the sources were made to determine line intensities. For IRAS16293A the average width of all lines fromthe Gaussian fits is 6.3 km s−1 while for IRAS16293B it is 1.4±0.3 km s−1, indicating very small differencesin widths between the lines. Likewise the averageVLSR is 3.0 km s−1 for IRAS16293A and 2.7 km s−1 forIRAS16293B with standard deviations of only 0.1–0.2 km s−1. For comparison the quoted uncertainties forthe predicted line rest frequencies correspond to 0.01–0.02 km s−1. The systemic velocities and line widthsare in good agreement with the large set of lines detected with the SMA (Jørgensen et al. 2011). All linesof methyl formate and glycolaldehyde have similar spatial extents toward each of the two sources. Fig. 2shows close-ups of each identified glycolaldehyde line toward IRAS16293B at 220 GHz.

To further validate the detections of the methyl formate andglycolaldehyde lines, we modeled thestrengths for all their lines in the observed band assuming an isothermal medium and LTE excitation andtaking into account the optical thickness of the lines (see,e.g., Goldsmith et al. 1999). Fig. 1 includes thebest fit models to the methyl formate and glycolaldehyde lines. The fits show comparable temperatures forthe two species (200 and 300 K for IRAS16293A and IRAS16293B,respectively). The derived columndensities averaged over 0.5′′ (60 AU) regions are given in Table 2. The model reproduces theobservedline profiles and strengths very well, including the vibrationally excited lines, even for this fairly simplifiedmodel.

The 220 GHz data also show a tentative detection of ethylene glycol. The strongest line of ethyleneglycol (222,20 (v = 1) − 212,19 (3 = 0) at 220.2498 GHz;Eu = 127 K) in the band coincides with a≈18σline toward IRAS16293B that is difficult to attribute to any other species. Using the LTE model at300 K,the observed line strength would require an ethylene glycolabundance of 0.3–0.5 with respect to glycolal-dehyde. This is comparable to the estimates by Hollis et al. (2002) for SgrB2(N), but notably smaller thanthe inferred values from comet Hale-Bopp where ethylene glycol is at least five times more abundant thanglycolaldehyde (Crovisier et al. 2004).

Similar model calculations can rule out some of the alternative identifications for the lines ascribed toglycolaldehyde. Cyclopropenylidene (c-C3H2) for example has two transitions at 220.2025 GHz that poten-tially could be confused with the glycolaldehyde line at 220.2040 GHz. However, these specific transitionsof c-C3H2 have very low Einstein A coefficients (∼ 10−8 s−1), so that for any reasonable excitation temper-ature, other stronger lines of this species should have beenobserved in the frequency range covered by theSMA observations – e.g., between 230.5 and 231.0 GHz1. Also, if ascribed to c-C3H2, this emission wouldbe red-shifted by about 2 km s−1 which should be easily discernable toward IRAS16293B. Likewise thetransitions at 220.196 GHz could also be attributed to a vinyl cyanide (CH2CHCN) line at 220.1964 GHz.However, this species would have a much stronger transitionat 220.138 GHz that is not seen.

A strong confirmation of the identification of glycolaldehyde is provided by the 690 GHz observations.A large number of glycolaldehyde transitions are expected to be located in this band with a range of energy

1Lines of this species detected previously using single-dish observations have significantly higher Einstein A coefficients,∼10−4–10−3 s−1, and are likely somewhat extended.

– 6 –

Table 1: Identified lines and results from Gaussian fit to emission.Molecule Transition Frequency log10 Aul Eu Flux [Jy km s−1]a VLSR,B

c

[GHz] [s−1] [K] IA IB [km s−1]

Band 6 lines

HCOOCH3 339,25 − 338,26A 3t = 1 220.1176 −4.18 572.6 0.14 0.063 2.5174,13 − 164,12E 3t = 0 220.1669 −3.82 103.2 4.36 1.39 2.6174,13 − 164,12A 3t = 0 220.1903 −3.82 103.1 4.16 1.43 2.6241,23 − 240,24E 3t = 1 220.2472 −5.46 355.1 0.056 0.061 2.9188,10 − 178,9E 3t = 1 220.2581b −3.89 330.8 1.89 0.66 2.7242,23 − 241,24E 3t = 1 220.2585b −5.46 355.1 . . . . . . . . .

1810,9 − 1710,8E 3t = 1 220.3074 −3.95 354.3 0.69 0.38 2.6HCOCH2OH 113,8 − 102,9 3 = 1 220.1644 −4.37 323.5 . . . 0.092 2.9

76,2 − 65,1 3 = 0 220.1966b −3.60 37.4 1.04 0.34 2.876,1 − 65,2 3 = 0 220.1968b −3.60 37.4 . . . . . . . . .

114,7 − 103,8 3 = 0 220.2040 −3.99 46.6 0.83 0.28 2.6114,7 − 103,8 3 = 2 220.2084 −3.98 420.8 0.12 0.13 2.43610,27 − 369,28 3 = 1 220.2433 −3.69 713.0 1.14 0.38 2.976,2 − 65,1 3 = 1 220.3111b −3.60 318.2 0.25 0.26 2.576,1 − 65,2 3 = 1 220.3113b −3.60 318.2 . . . . . . . . .

Band 9 linesd

HCOCH2OH 3811,28 − 3710,27 3 = 0 686.6517 −2.53 488.1 . . . . . . . . .

3014,16/17 − 2913,17/16 3 = 0 687.0513 −2.30 377.4 . . . . . . . . .

1919,0/1 − 1818,1/0 3 = 0 687.4445 −1.99 324.6 . . . . . . . . .

3512,24 − 3414,23 3 = 0 689.4295 −2.42 438.8 . . . . . . . . .

3512,23 − 3414,24 3 = 0 689.5776 −2.42 438.8 . . . . . . . . .

2815,13/14 − 2714,14/13 3 = 0 689.8903 −2.24 362.1 . . . . . . . . .

2716,11/12 − 2615,12/11 3 = 0 703.8607 −2.17 365.3 . . . . . . . . .

4211,32 − 4110,31 3 = 0e 704.8369 −2.57 580.0 . . . . . . . . .

Notes: Molecular data are taken from the JPL and CDMS catalogs (Pickett et al. 1998; Muller et al. 2001,2005). The glycolaldehyde molecular data are based on laboratory measurements by Butler et al. (2001),Widicus Weaver et al. (2005) and Caroll et al. (2010) and model predictions based on these (see text) asprovided by the JPL June 2012 catalog entry.aTotal flux from Gaussian fits to the line emission in the

central beam toward IRAS16293A (IA) and IRAS16293B (IB). For conversion to brightness temperatures,the gain of the interferometric observations with the givenbeam size is 0.1 Jy K−1. bTransitions notresolved.cVLSR toward IRAS16293B.dLines show emission off-source and red-shifted absorption

on-source.eShown in Fig. 3; not detected.

– 7 –

Fig. 2.— Zoom-in on the glycolaldehyde transitions detected at 220 GHz. The velocities on the X-axis isgiven relative to the systemic velocity of 2.7 km s−1.

– 8 –

Fig. 3.— Zoom-in on the glycolaldehyde transitions predicted to be most optically thick at 690 GHz towardthe IRAS16293B continuum peak (black) and toward a position offset by one synthesized beam from thecontinuum peak (blue; shifted by 0.75 Jy beam−1 in the Y-axis direction). As in Fig. 2 the velocities on theX-axis is given relative to the systemic velocity.

– 9 –

levels and line strengths. The model based on the 220 GHz datapredicts that a number of these transitionsare becoming optically thick (τ60 AU & 0.1− 1.0 averaged over the 0.5′′ region used for the column densityestimates). Fig. 3 shows the spectra toward the IRAS16293B continuum peak as well as offset by onesynthesized beam for the lines expected to be most opticallythick. Toward the continuum peak, the 7 mostoptically thick transitions all show red-shifted absorption against the IRAS16293B continuum whereas theyare seen in emission at the offset position. Again, these lines show a nearly perfect correspondance tothe expected systemic velocity of 2.7 km s−1. Equally important, the models do not predict other lines ofglycolaldehyde that should be detectable elsewhere in the large 690 GHz spectral window at the sensitivityof the observations, nor in the 220 GHz window. The absence ofemission toward the continuum peak forIRAS16293B suggests that the continuum is completely optically thick at these high frequencies and scales(0.25′′; 30 AU diameter). This is consistent with the observations of Chandler et al. (2005) who showed thatthe continuum at centimeter wavelengths was due to optically thick thermal dust emission at the same scales(0.15–0.25′′). The fact that glycolaldehyde and other complex species show infall signatures toward sourceB (see also Pineda et al. 2012) implies that these molecules are moving toward the planet-forming zones at≤ 30 AU radius.

The main uncertainty in the assignments is the accuracy and completeness of the spectroscopic cata-logs. About one third of the lines brighter than about 0.1 Jy beam−1 remain unidentified in the 220 GHzspectrum and other possible assignments for the potential glycolaldehyde lines can thus not be ruled out.Also, not all glycolaldehyde line frequencies have been measured directly in the laboratory, especially forthe vibrationally excited states detected here and for the lines at 690 GHz, but are based on a spectro-scopic model using measurements at other frequencies. However, since the laboratory data cover lines upto 1.2 THz and include other vibrationally excited lines with a similar range ofJ andKa values as observedhere, the frequency predictions should be reliable. Indeed, their quoted uncertainties are lower than what canbe discerned in our data. A check can be made by comparing the frequencies from the JPL and CDMS cat-alogs which have been computed using slightly different methods and datasets. For the lines detected in theALMA spectra, the agreement between the frequencies is about 0.2 MHz – corresponding to< 0.1 km s−1.Thus, within the uncertainties given in the catalogs the identification of lines are secure. Also, the relativecolumn density (or abundance) of methyl formate to glycolaldehyde of 10–15 is consistent with previousmeasurements (see also§ 4) and, combined with the additional high frequency detections and the closematches in velocity for 13 lines, provide a compelling case for the assignments. We stress that IRAS16293Bwith its narrow line widths provides a much cleaner source for identification of complex species than highmass sources like SgrB2(N) that have been studied so far. Future searches with ALMA will be able to furtherstrengthen the assignments either by extending the number of lines or searching for specific spectroscopicsignatures – e.g., those provided by the low excitation3 = 0 transitions used for previous detections at 3 mm.

4. Discussion: formation of glycolaldehyde

The similar spectral shapes of the lines of the complex organic molecules (in particular, the line widthsand the absorption profiles toward IRAS16293B) as well as their similar spatial extent suggest that methyl

– 10 –

formate, glycolaldehyde and other species coexist in the same gas. Furthermore, methyl formate and gly-colaldehyde are fit by similar excitation temperatures in our simple LTE models. Therefore, a discussion ofthe chemical relation between glycolaldehyde and methyl formate is relevant.

Our results indicate that methyl formate is a factor 10–15 more abundant than glycolaldehyde in thewarm gas toward the two binary components of IRAS16293-2422. This value is consistent with previousmeasurements ranging from 52 in the hot core of SgrB2(N) (Hollis et al. 2001) and the upper limit of 34 inG34.41+0.31 (Beltran et al. 2009) to the average of 5–6.5 found on more extended scales toward SgrB2(N)(Hollis et al. 2000; Requena-Torres et al. 2008). Relative to the lower limit on the H2 column density fromthe optically thick dust continuum emission toward IRAS16293B (Chandler et al. 2005) and taking intoaccount the filling factor, the two species are estimated to have abundances relative to H2 of 8×10−8 (methylformate) and 6×10−9 (glycolaldehyde).

One of the major discussions concerning the origin of complex organic molecules in space is whetherthese form from second generation gas-phase reactions based on protonated CH3OH (released from icesat high temperatures) or due to first generation reactions inthe icy grain mantles, possibly induced byUV- or cosmic-ray irradiation (e.g., Herbst & van Dishoeck 2009). Grain-surface reactions are becomingincreasingly more popular, especially since the formationof methyl formate through gas-phase reactionsseems to be too inefficient to explain the observed abundances (Horn et al. 2004).

Halfen et al. (2006) compared a survey of the glycolaldehydeemission toward SgrB2(N) with formalde-hyde (H2CO), motivated by the first step in the formose reaction consisting of two H2CO molecules com-bining to form HCOCH2OH. Modeling the emission from H2C18O transitions detected in our SMA surveywith the same excitation temperature as for methyl formate and glycolaldehyde suggests a formaldehydeto glycolaldehyde abundance ratio of 42–56 (using a16O:18O abundance ratio of 560 characteristic for thelocal ISM (Wilson & Rood 1994)). This is in agreement with theestimate by Halfen et al. (2006) of a ratioof 27 in SgrB2(N). Halfen et al. interpreted this ratio in favor of the formation of glycolaldehyde in spacethrough a gas-phase formose reaction. However, as pointed out by Woods et al. (2012) this and other gas-phase reactions tend to produce too little glycolaldehyde compared to observed abundances in an absolutesense.

Alternatively glycolaldehyde may be formed through grain-surface reactions in ices rich in methanol(CH3OH) or its derivatives. From laboratory experimentsOberg et al. (2009) found that photochemistryof UV-irradiated methanol ices mixed with significant amounts of CO can explain the observed fractionsof oxygen-rich complex organics like methyl formate relative to methanol in sources such as IRAS16293(Bisschop et al. 2008). AlthoughOberg et al. (2009) could not fully separate glycolaldehydeand methylformate in their methanol-rich experiments, the derived lower limits on their abundances in CO-containingices relative to methanol are 4% and 8%, respectively, consistent with the combined IRAS16293 resultsof Bisschop et al. (2008) and those found here of≈ 1% and 10–20%. Also, their upper limit of ethyleneglycol relative to glycolaldehyde (<25%) agrees roughly with our ratio of 0.3–0.5. Experiments with ir-radiation of pure CH3OH ices on the other hand produce too large ethylene glycol abundances relative toglycolaldehyde by an order of magnitude. The CH3OH:CO ratio is clearly critical: laboratory results for the

– 11 –

CH3OH:CO=1:10 mixtures show a 4 times larger abundance of glycolaldehyde relative to ethanol, whereasthe ethanol lines detected here and in the previous SMA observations (Bisschop et al. 2008) suggests thatethanol is 3–5 times more abundant than glycolaldehyde in IRAS16293. As pointed out byOberg et al.(2009) the relative abundances of some species also strongly depend on the ice temperature, with the glycol-aldehyde and ethylene glycol production requiring heatingabove∼30 K. Thus, both exact ice composition(amount of CO mixed with CH3OH) and temperature play a role in the chemistry; a combination of amoderately CO-rich ice and mild heating best reproduce the current data.

Still, additional systematic surveys of more species and sources are needed to constrain the surfaceformation mechanisms in more detail. These early data illustrate the enormous potential of ALMA for doingthis. The current sensitivity is already more than an order of magnitude better than that of previous single-dish or interferometric line surveys toward this source (Caux et al. 2011; Jørgensen et al. 2011), revealinga line density toward IRAS16293B nearly ten times higher than before. Clearly, ALMA is posed to revealmany more complex organic molecules in young solar-system analogs.

The authors are grateful to Holger Muller and an anonymous referee for good discussions about thespectroscopic accuracy and useful comments on the paper. This paper makes use of the following ALMAScience Verification data: ADS/JAO.ALMA#2011.0.00007.SV. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (represent-ing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), togetherwith NRC (Canada) and NSC and ASIAA(Taiwan), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO,AUI /NRAO and NAOJ. This research was supported by a Lundbeck Foundation Junior Group Leader Fel-lowship and by a grant from the Instrumentcenter for Danish Astrophysics (IDA) to Jes Jørgensen. Researchat Centre for Star and Planet Formation is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation and the Uni-versity of Copenhagen’s programme of excellence. Astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by a Spinozagrant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Research Schoolin Astronomy (NOVA), and by EU A-ERC grant 291141 CHEMPLAN. Markus Schmalzl is supported bythe ALMA Regional Center node Allegro funded by NWO.

REFERENCES

Beltran, M. T., Codella, C., Viti, S., Neri, R., & Cesaroni,R. 2009, ApJ, 690, L93

Bisschop, S. E., Jørgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Bottinelli, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2008, A&A, 488, 959

Blake, G. A., van Dishoek, E. F., Jansen, D. J., Groesbeck, T.D., & Mundy, L. G. 1994, ApJ, 428, 680

Bottinelli, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L69

Butler, R. A. H., De Lucia, F. C., Petkie, D. T., et al. 2001, ApJS, 134, 319

Carroll, P. B., Drouin, B. J., & Widicus Weaver, S. L. 2010, ApJ, 723, 845

Caux, E., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A23

– 12 –

Cazaux, S., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Ceccarelli, C., Castets, A., Wakelam, V., Caux, E., Parise, B., & Teyssier,D. 2003, ApJ, 593, L51

Ceccarelli, C., Castets, A., Caux, E., Hollenbach, D., Loinard, L., Molinari, S., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2000,A&A, 355, 1129

Chandler, C. J., Brogan, C. L., Shirley, Y. L., & Loinard, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 371

Crovisier, J., Bockelee-Morvan, D., Biver, N., Colom, P.,Despois, D., & Lis, D. C. 2004, A&A, 418, L35

Goldsmith, P. F., Langer, W. D., & Velusamy, T. 1999, ApJ, 519, L173

Halfen, D. T., Apponi, A. J., Woolf, N., Polt, R., & Ziurys, L.M. 2006, ApJ, 639, 237

Herbst, E., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 427

Hollis, J. M., Jewell, P. R., Lovas, F. J., & Remijan, A. 2004,ApJ, 613, L45

Hollis, J. M., Lovas, F. J., & Jewell, P. R. 2000, ApJ, 540, L107

Hollis, J. M., Lovas, F. J., Jewell, P. R., & Coudert, L. H. 2002, ApJ, 571, L59

Hollis, J. M., Vogel, S. N., Snyder, L. E., Jewell, P. R., & Lovas, F. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, L81

Horn, A., Møllendal, H., Sekiguchi, O., Uggerud, E., Roberts, H., Herbst, E., Viggiano, A. A., & Fridgen,T. D. 2004, ApJ, 611, 605

Jørgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Nguyen Luong, Q., & Takakuwa, S. 2011, A&A, 534, A100

Larralde, R., Robertson, M. P., & Miller, S. L. 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 92,8158

Loinard, L., Torres, R. M., Mioduszewski, A. J., & Rodrıguez, L. F. 2008, ApJ, 675, L29

Muller, H. S. P., Thorwirth, S., Roth, D. A., & Winnewisser,G. 2001, A&A, 370, L49

Muller, H. S. P., Schloder, F., Stutzki, J., & Winnewisser, G. 2005, Journal of Molecular Structure, 742, 215

Oberg, K. I., Garrod, R. T., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Linnartz, H. 2009, A&A, 504, 891

Pickett, H. M., Poynter, I. R. L., Cohen, E. A., Delitsky, M. L., Pearson, J. C., & Muller, H. S. P. 1998,J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf., 60, 883

Pineda, J. E., Maury, A. J., Fuller, G. A., et al. 2012, A&A, inpress. (arXiv:1206.5215)

Requena-Torres, M. A., Martın-Pintado, J., Martın, S., &Morris, M. R. 2008, ApJ, 672, 352

Schoier, F. L., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Blake, G. A. 2002, A&A, 390, 1001

Schoier, F. L., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Blake, G. A. 2004, A&A, 418, 185

– 13 –

van Dishoeck, E. F., Blake, G. A., Jansen, D. J., & Groesbeck,T. D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 760

Widicus Weaver, S. L., Butler, R. A. H., Drouin, B. J., et al. 2005, ApJS, 158, 188

Wilson, T. L., & Rood, R. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 191

Woods, P. M., Kelly, G., Viti, S., Slater, B., Brown, W. A., Puletti, F., Burke, D. J., & Raza, Z. 2012, ApJ,750, 19

Wootten, A. 1989, ApJ, 337, 858

This preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2.

Table 2: Results of the model fits to the methyl formate and glycolaldehyde.

I16293A I16293B

Temperature 200 K 300 KN60AU(Methyl formate) 5×1017 cm−2 4×1017 cm−2

N60AU(Glycolaldehyde) 4×1016 cm−2 3×1016 cm−2